Taylor's Formula and displacement operator: I (too often) see in papers (mathematical physics but a recent paper (a) by mathematicians also) the statement
False belief 1 : a) Let $D=\frac{d}{dx}$ be the derivation operator. Then, for all $f\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$, $$ e^{tD}[f](x)=f(x+t) $$
which is false (take any $\phi\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ with compact support, for instance).
False belief 2 : b) In the same vein, for formal power series (``“ourif our object is formal then we do not have to ensure convergences''”). Let $S(x)\in \mathbb{R}[[x]]$ ($x$ is a formal variable) then for $t\in \mathbb{R}$, one has $$ e^{tD}[S](x)=S(x+t) $$
which is false as we must have $t$ in the domain of convergence of $S$.
Remarks (i) The function $f\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ is analytic over $\mathbb{R}$ iff $$ (\forall x\in \mathbb{R})(\exists R>0)(\forall t\in ]-R,R[) (\sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{t^n}{n!}D^n[f](x)=f(x+t))\qquad (1) $$$$ (\forall x\in \mathbb{R})(\exists R>0)(\forall t\in ]-R,R[) (\sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{t^n}{n!}D^n[f](x)=f(x+t))\tag{1}\label{275319_1} $$ (ii) Even if $f\in C^\omega(\mathbb{R})$, it can happen that the left hand side of eq. (1)\eqref{275319_1} do not converge otherwise $f$ would be the restriction of an entire function (which e.g. $\frac{1}{1+x^2}$ is not, for example).
(iii) Even if the LHS of (1)\eqref{275319_1} converges for all $x,t\in \mathbb{R}$, $f$ need not be analytic. Consider the following function (classic in theory of distributions)
$$
f(x)=0\mbox{ if } x\notin ]-1,1[\mbox{ and } f(x)=e^{\frac{1}{1-x^2}} \mbox{ if } x\in ]-1,1[
$$$$
f(x)=0\text{ if } x\notin \mathopen]-1,1\mathclose[\text{ and } f(x)=e^{\frac{1}{1-x^2}} \text{ if } x\in \mathopen]-1,1[\mathclose.
$$
(iv) In the (b) case $S=\sum_{n\geq 0}n!\, x^n$ for example cannot be displaced.
(v) As @vanxoo sayssays false belief 2 could be cured by considering, in appropriate spaces, $t$ as a formal variable. This is the point of view of Bourbaki in Functions of a real variable (see Ch VI Generalized Taylor expansions).